инструменты
Изменить страну:

When Neighbors Live in Different Worlds

Subscribe to Autocracy in America here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts

Hosts Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev talk with Hanna Rosin about the new series We Live Here Now. Rosin, along with her co-host, Lauren Ober, recently found out that their new neighbors moved to Washington, D.C., to support January 6 insurrectionists. Rosin and Ober decided to knock on their neighbors’ door. We Live Here Now is a podcast series about what happened next. Subscribe to We Live Here Now here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | iHeart

The following is a transcript of the episode:

Anne Applebaum: This is Anne Applebaum.

Peter Pomerantsev: And this is Peter Pomerantsev, and we’re here with a guest today, The Atlantic’s Hanna Rosin.

Hanna Rosin: Hi.

Applebaum: And although our series, Autocracy in America, has wrapped up, there is still a lot to do and think about ahead of the 2024 election.

Pomerantsev: Hanna is the host of The Atlantic’s weekly show called Radio Atlantic, and she’s also just released a new podcast called We Live Here Now, a series.

Rosin: Yeah, We Live Here Now is the story of my partner, Lauren Ober, and I discovering that we had some new neighbors, and it’s about our effort to get to know these neighbors. And it turned out, those neighbors were supporting the January 6 insurrectionists.

Pomerantsev: At the end of this episode, we’ll include the entire first episode for listeners to hear. But we want to start with a little clip that gives you a sense of what first launched them into making the series.

Lauren Ober: I guess it started just like any other dog walk. Hanna and I leashed up our pups and set out from our house on our post-dinner stroll. It was early November of 2023, and I remember it was unseasonably warm. We headed off down the hill from our house towards our neighborhood park.

Rosin: A block past the park, Lauren spotted it: a black Chevy Equinox with Texas plates we’d seen parked around the neighborhood. Just a basic American SUV. Except for the stickers that covered the back windshield.

Ober: Stickers we’re very much not used to seeing in our mixed-race, mixed-income neighborhood. Our vibe is more like, Make D. C. the 51st state and No taxation without representation. These stickers were a combo platter of skulls and American flags. There was a Roman numeral for three, the symbol of a militia group called the Three Percenters, and the pièce de résistance, a giant decal in the center of the back window that read Free Our Patriots, J4, J6. Meaning, Justice for January 6.

Rosin: Lauren notices every new or different thing in the neighborhood. And this car was definitely different. As we walked past it, Lauren said what she always said when we saw this car.

Ober: “There’s that fucking militia mobile again.” Right after I said that moderately unneighborly thing, the passenger-side window rolled down. Cigarette smoke curled out of the car. And the person inside shouted, “Justice for J6!”

Rosin: To which Lauren said—

Ober: “You’re in the wrong neighborhood for that, honey.” And then the woman in the car said words I’m not gonna forget anytime soon: “We live here now. So suck it, bitch.”

Applebaum: Hanna, I’ve had confrontation experiences myself.

I was once at a dinner in Poland—this is a couple years ago—with old friends who suddenly started repeating a conspiracy theory about the government, and it happened to be the government that my husband had been part of. And I tried to listen politely and go like, Uh-huh, yeah, that’s true, yeah, sure. And then eventually I left the room.

Rosin: Uh-huh.

Applebaum: And I’m not sure I could have lasted even that long with people who weren’t old friends and were doing the same thing. So we’re not going to talk all about We Live Here Now, since many listeners may not have yet heard the podcast, but I do want you to tell me a little bit more about that experience of being shouted down in your neighborhood—or, more accurately, being with your partner as she was being shouted down. Were you never tempted to argue back?

Rosin: Yeah, I mean, I really think it’s an accident of how the interaction happened. If it had happened at dinner, I guess you can temper yourself, like you just described. You could never see these people again. Like, you could ignore them or shout them down and then choose to never see them again. But because these people lived a couple of blocks away, I sort of knew I was going to see them a lot. So maybe that muted my reaction. My partner doesn’t have a mute button, but I just kind of knew that I better take a step back and think about what I want to do, because I was going to run into these people who, you know, happen to have militia stickers and are seemingly aggressive. So I just kind of needed a minute to think what I wanted to do. Without that pause, I’m not sure this story would have happened in the way that it happened.

Pomerantsev: And how did you build the relationship with them? I mean, was it, was there any kind of discomfort or danger involved when you first met them? And then, but most importantly, how did you build trust? I mean, how would they learn to trust you?

Rosin: You know, it’s interesting. Once you decide to step into an alternative world, it’s almost like you have to make the decision. Most of the time, we just don’t make that decision. We’re like, This is cuckoo. I’m not going. I don’t share anything in common with these people. Like, we don’t even have a shared set of facts in the way we might have 15, 20 years ago. So there’s just—like, there’s no beginning to this relationship. For whatever reason, we closed our eyes and decided to step into that alternative reality. And once you make that decision, you just do it very, very, very gingerly.

In this case, they happen to do a public event, which we knew was happening every single night, and it’s out on a street corner in D.C. And it’s public space. So that actually gave us the freedom to show up at this public event. It’s outside the D.C. Jail, and they’re in support of the January 6 prisoners. The detainees are all held in a segregated wing of the D. C. Jail, so they hold a protest every single night at the exact same time. So you know, you can steel yourself up every night and say like, Okay, tonight’s the night I’m going to go to the vigil, you know?

Applebaum: Can I actually ask you some more about that vigil? Because one of the things We Live Here Now does, it explores the way in which people can rewrite history, which is one of the things that happens. And you talk about how at the vigil, there are posters with faces of people who died on January 6. And each poster reads Murdered by Capitol Police,even though only one person was found to have died from a bullet fired by the police, And so there’s now a narrative that the people in jail are the good guys and the people outside of jail are the bad guys. I actually spent 20 years writing books about the history of the Soviet Union, and this is very much what autocratic regimes do: They change the way you remember history. They make heroes out of villains, and vice versa. And how, how did you see that happening and how did you come to understand how it worked? Why was it successful among the people that you were visiting?

Rosin: Well, that was one of the most remarkable experiences I had—is being that close to watching revisionism happen. Like, the nitty-gritty, going back and time and, Okay, when was the first time that Trump mentioned Ashli Babbitt?,who is the woman who was shot by the Capitol Police officers? Because initially, right after January 6, many—even Trump supporters—said, you know, The Capitol Police officer did a good job. You know, He did his duty. It was a terrible day. Like, if you look at things that happened in early January, everybody was sharing the reality of what happened on January 6. And then you watch how, slowly, kind of people peel away from that reality. Trump starts trying out lines at his rallies. Oh, Ashli Babbitt was murdered. He uses the words, “they,” a lot. You know, they killed Ashli Babbitt. They did this. And at that point, the Big Lie—the lie that the election was stolen—could have faded away, like it felt like a moment where it could have just been relegated to history, and then it’s like, all of a sudden, there’s this collective decision, Oh no, we’re going to revive this. And the way we’re going to revive it is by talking first about this martyr, and then about this group of people, and suddenly black is white and white is black.

And because these people who we got close to, they’re sort of innocents in this narrative. One of the main characters is Micki Witthoeft, who’s the mother of Ashli Babbitt. And just think about that. She’s a grieving mother. It’s as if her emotional-grief reality starts to align with Trump’s messaging in this perfect storm, and then all of a sudden, things that aren’t true seem, not just true, but righteous.

Pomerantsev: Tell me a bit about the myth, though, because on the one hand, it’s an alternative reality, which you described so well just now, but on the other hand, isn’t it quite American at the same time? I mean, I love when you talk about, you know, how they describe themselves as “saving democracy.” They’re the true patriots. I mean, as you encountered it, did you find it completely alien myth or something that actually sort of resonated with so many American stories about themselves: rebelling against Washington, the whole—

Rosin: Yes, I mean, one thing that I came to feel about the January 6 detainees, like, often it would pop into my head: them in costume, like, Okay, they’re, they’re sort of role-playing 1776 here, you know. Particularly, one of our episodes is about a jury trial. My partner was very randomly called onto a jury, as many people in D.C. are, and it happened to be a January 6 case. And not only that, but it happened to be one of these January 6 cases in which you feel that someone just kind of lost it for a day. You know, it’s a dad; he has five children; by a judge's count, extremely law abiding; been married for a long time. But then during that day, just kind of, you know, went nuts.

And as you get closer to what they did that day, you do feel like there was just a rush, like a rush of sort of feeling heroic, you know, feeling patriotic, feeling like you were saving the country, feeling like you have this incredible mission. And then I think, one thing that nobody predicted is that they did keep these guys in a segregated wing of the D.C. Jail, together. We don’t usually do that. I mean, Gitmo is the other place where we’ve done that. But the D.C. Jail is largely Black. And so these guys had a reputation at that day, if you remember, as being white supremacists, so they did not want to throw them into the D.C. Jail. But the result of keeping them together, I mean, you can imagine what happened.

Applebaum: So this is exactly the thing that I wanted to ask you about. I was very struck by one of the characters who you interview and describe. This is Brandon Fellows, who was a guy who was almost accidentally caught up in January the 6th. He entered the Capitol. He wound up smoking a joint in one of the offices in the Capitol. As a result, he was arrested. And because he was part of this group of prisoners, he was essentially radicalized. And that story of how the prisoners together radicalized one another, created a mythology around themselves, it reminded me of so many other moments in history when that’s happened, I mean, for both good and for bad. The IRA in British prisons radicalized; um, various jihadis and various prisons around the world are said to have radicalized that way too. But also the ANC in South Africa, who were together in a prison on Robben Island for many years. I mean, that’s how they created their cohesive movement. So it can work positively too. Weren’t you tempted to try and talk him out of it, where you—did you not want to say, “Don’t you see what’s happening to you?”

Rosin: Yeah, I mean, with him, that instinct was very powerful because, you know, he’s slightly older than my oldest child. And so I—so in his case, I did have the instinct of, like, trying to shake this out of him.

Like, “Don’t you see?,” like “You were in this—you were in this jail,” you know, and he was in this jail. He came in as a goofball. Then he came to see these guys as, like, fierce and tough. And by the end, he came to see them, as you said, Peter, as true patriots, so it’s not just that they were tough guys. It was like they were true and righteous and the next generation of founding fathers and he was just like, Nope, like you just don’t, you don’t get it. I’m deadly serious here.

Pomeranstev: So you didn’t build a coalition with them, you didn’t convince them, you don’t try to convince them to change parties. But you spent a year with them. What is it that you found meaningful in that interaction? And why is it meaningful for all of us to hear about it? I mean, it’s fascinating, but also what is the importance of doing something like this?

Rosin: I can only tell you about a limited importance, which is that over the last few years, I’ve started to read—as I bet you guys have—you know, what do you have, like, we all throw up our hands: We’re so polarized. We’re not even living in the same reality. We can’t talk to each other.

You cannot go into a conversation, as much as you deeply, deeply want to, with the intention of changing the other person’s mind. That is a losing strategy. Don’t do it. It’s so hard. It’s as hard in politics as it is in a relationship. It’s very hard because we all just want to do that. And so your only option is to just open your mind, hear what they have to say, be curious, ask questions, and that’s it.

Applebaum: And how do you do that without becoming angry?

Rosin: It’s— [Laughs.] I mean, that’s your, they just, because I’ve been to enough couples therapy [Laughs.] that it’s like, that’s your only option. And you almost have to do it with a leap of faith that there’s something human at the end of that.

Pomerantsev: So the meaning, in a way, is learning to just behave and interact in a different way.

Rosin: There are surprising kind of moments of non-nastiness that arise when you approach the world from that perspective.

Pomerantsev: I mean, I spend a lot of my time writing about propaganda and talking to people with all sorts of deeply warped beliefs, and at one point I realized that the only worthwhile question I could ask that would lead to a conversation that was human was, How did it start? How did you start believing in X?

Rosin:Yes.

Pomerantsev: And then you’d always get a very personal story.

Rosin: Yes.

Pomerantsev: Usually about some sort of trauma. I’m not saying that’s any kind of excuse, but it suddenly became a human story about how someone is making sense of the world.

Rosin: Yes.

Pomerantsev: And suddenly there was a person. Again, I never changed them. They’re still gonna do horrible things, but at least I knew they were a person. I don’t know. Maybe, in the long run, that helps us come up with better strategies to deal with it. But not immediately. It’s not a like aha moment.

Rosin: Yeah. It’s not a kumbaya. It’s just like, it really is a leap of faith ’cause as you’re doing it, you feel, Am I doing something dangerous? Like humanizing this propaganda? Like, Is this wrong, what I’m doing? And you just kind of live with that doubt and you keep asking questions, you know?

Pomeranstev: Yeah. But humans do lots of bad things. Humanizing doesn’t mean making it good; it just makes it human. You know, that doesn’t—it's like, Ooh, humanizing. Yeah, I think maybe the word humanizing needs to lose its positive aura. Humans are pretty awful.

Rosin: That’s a pretty good idea.

Pomeranstev: But they are human. [Laughs.]

Rosin: So what is the point of humanizing if you remove the positive aspects? Humanizing is good because …

Pomerantsev: You start to see the challenge for what it is rather than something esoteric. You know, it’s a real person doing real things. Therefore we can deal with it.

Applebaum: Hanna Rosin is the co-host along with Lauren Ober of the new six-part podcast series from The Atlantic called We Live Here Now. Find We Live Here Now wherever you listen to podcasts.

Pomerantsev: And we have the first episode here. Keep listening and, Hanna, thanks for talking with us today.

Rosin: Thank you both.

[We Live Here Now Episode 1: “We’re Allowed to Be Here”]

Lauren Ober: When the neighbor incident first happened, it didn’t really feel much like anything. Or maybe we were both too stunned to take it all in.

Hanna Rosin: It wasn’t until we started telling other people the story and they reacted that it began to feel like maybe we’d discovered something.

Ober: I guess it started just like any other dog walk. Hanna and I leashed up our pups and set out from our house on our post-dinner stroll. It was early November of 2023, and I remember it was unseasonably warm. We headed off down the hill from our house, towards our neighborhood park.

[Music]

Rosin: A block past the park, Lauren spotted it: A black Chevy Equinox with Texas plates we’d seen parked around the neighborhood. Just a basic American SUV except for the stickers that covered the back windshield—

Ober: —stickers we’re very much not used to seeing in our mixed-race, mixed-income neighborhood. Our vibe is more like, Make D.C. the 51st state, and, No taxation without representation.

But these stickers were a combo platter of skulls and American flags. There was a Roman numeral for three—the symbol of a militia group called the Three Percenters—and the pièce de résistance: a giant decal in the center of the back window that read, free our patriots. j4j6, meaning, Justice for January 6.

Rosin: Lauren notices every new or different thing in the neighborhood, and this car was definitely different. As we walked past it, Lauren said what she always said when we saw this car.

Ober: “There’s that fucking militiamobile again!”

Right after I said that moderately unneighborly thing, the passenger-side window rolled down, cigarette smoke curled out of the car, and the person inside shouted, “Justice for J6!”

Rosin: To which Lauren said—

Ober: “You’re in the wrong neighborhood for that, honey.” And then the woman in the car said words I’m not going to forget anytime soon: “We live here now. So suck it, bitch.”

We’ll get to who that person is soon enough. But we’re not there yet. When we first encountered the woman from the car, we had no idea who we were dealing with. I just knew I was sufficiently put in my place. “Well, okay,” I remember saying to Hanna as we walked back home.

Rosin: I remember, after it happened, we walked away in total silence. That’s my memory—each of us looping in our own heads about something.

Ober: I remember being mad because I lost. (Laughs.)

Rosin: Right.

Ober: Because I didn’t get the final word, and because I just kept thinking, like, the whole combination of it felt bad to me. It’s like, Militia stickers. Justice for J6. We live here. You just called me a name. The whole thing was very out of place. And I felt it was a little destabilizing.

Rosin: Yeah, yeah. I walked home in a half hypervigilant-neighborhood-watch brain—like, Who lives here now? What are they doing here? Are we going to get into more of these confrontations?—and a half journalism brain, like, Who’s we? Where do they live? Why are there here now? Those were my two tracks when I was walking home.

[Music]

​Ober: I’m Lauren Ober.

Rosin: And I’m Hanna Rosin.

Ober: And from The Atlantic, this is We Live Here Now.

Most of the country watched January 6 from a safe distance: something happening in their Twitter feeds or on their phone screens. But for those of us living in D.C., it was happening in our backyard.

Donald Trump: I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Rioter: Start making a list. Put all those names down. And we start hunting them down one by one.

Person on bullhorn inside Congress: We had a disbursement of tear gas in the Rotunda. Please be advised there are masks under your seats. Please grab a mask.

[Music]

All Things Considered host Ailsa Chang: In Washington, D.C., a curfew has now taken effect from 6 p.m. Eastern tonight to 6 a.m. Thursday morning.

Ober: So we were actually left with the wreckage of that day. We were in a militarized city. We were living under a curfew. Streets were blocked off. The windows were all boarded up. And you felt like you were living, if not in a warzone, in a dangerous place.

Rosin: And there was National Guard everywhere. All the stores were closed, and there were very few regular people walking around doing regular things. And I was just thinking, Where am I? What city is this?

Ober: Right. I bought a baseball bat for protection.

Rosin: I remember that.

Ober: Which is why, two-plus years later, it felt like this whole period of time we’d rather forget was racing back. Donald Trump was looking like he’d be the Republican nominee, and a second Trump presidency seemed possible. Plus, we had a car with militia stickers lurking in our neighborhood.

Rosin: So no, we did not welcome January 6 supporters creeping back to the scene of the crime. But also, we wanted to know what they were up to.

[Music]

Ober: In the immediate aftermath of January 6, there were three names I associated with what happened at the Capitol: The QAnon Shaman, for obvious reasons; Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes because he seemed really dangerous, and also he had an eye patch; and Ashli Babbitt, who has everything to do with our new neighbors’ arrival in D.C.

Four people died that day, but I only remember hearing about Ashli. Maybe that’s because she was the only rioter killed by law enforcement.

Ashli Babbitt was a Trump diehard, so it’s not surprising she made her way to D.C. for the rally. She was a Second Amendment–loving libertarian. She wholeheartedly believed in MAGA and QAnon. During the pandemic, she was hostile about mask mandates and refused to get vaccinated. When California issued a stay-at-home order, she tweeted, “This is that commie bullshit!”

Rosin: The day before her death, Ashli tweeted in QAnon speak: “Nothing will stop us....they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon D.C. in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”

Ashli Babbitt: We are walking to the Capitol in a mob. There’s an estimated over 3 million people here today. So despite what the media tells you, boots on ground definitely say something different. There is a sea of nothing but red, white, and blue.

Ober: On the day of the riots, she seemed genuinely thrilled to be there.

Babbitt: And it was amazing to get to see the president talk. We are now walking down the inaugural path to the Capitol building, 3 million plus people. God bless America, patriots.

Rosin: More like 50,000 people, give or take. And a few thousand of them went into the Capitol—or, more accurately, broke in. When the mob of protestors breached the Capitol, busting windows and breaking down doors, Ashli was right there in the mix.

Rioter: There’s so many people. They’re going to push their way up here.

Rosin: There are four videos shot by rioters that capture this moment in its entirety: Ashli strides down a hallway like she knows where she’s going. She’s followed by other rioters, but they’re suddenly stopped when they come to a set of doors with large window panels. Through the windows, you can make out congresspeople being evacuated away from the growing mob. The crowd Ashli is with has accidentally landed at the bullseye, the actual place where these congresspeople were about to certify the election.

[Crowd noise]

Rosin: On the other side of the doors is a cop with a gun, although it’s unclear if Ashli can see him. She’s the only woman in a sea of men, and she’s small, and she seems to be yelling.

Ashli: It’s our fucking house. We’re allowed to be in here. You’re wrong.

Rosin: “It’s our fucking house. We’re allowed to be in here. You’re wrong.”

One of the rioters breaks a window, and then, out of nowhere, Ashli tries to climb through it.

[Crowd noise]

Rosin: The cop shoots.

Rioter: Oh! Oh, shit! Shots fired! Shots fired!

Rosin: She immediately falls backwards and lands on the floor. She jerks and convulses, and blood pours out of her mouth.

Rioter 1: She’s dead.

Rioter 2: She’s dead?

Rioter 1: She’s dead. I saw the light go out in her eyes. I saw the lights go out.

Rioter 2: What happened, bro? Tell the world.

Rosin: And then something happens right after she dies. It’s a detail I missed at first, but it turned out to be a spark for everything that would happen since that day. People around Ashli take out their cell phones and start filming.

Rioter 1: This individual says he actually saw her die. He actually saw her die.

Rioter 2: I’ll post that video. I have the video. I have the video of the guy with the gun, and they’re shooting her.

Rioter: Okay. I want to get with you. I’m with Infowars.com. I’m with Infowars.com.

Rioter 2: “Jayden X.” Have you ever heard of that?

Rosin: One person says he’s from Infowars and offers to buy footage from someone closer.

Rioter 1: I want to get your info right now if you got that shot.

Rioter 2: I have it all. I was right at the door.

Rioter 2: Okay. I need that footage, man. It’s going to go out to the world. It’s going to change so much.

Rosin: Even in the chaos they realize: A martyr was born.

Ober: Rumors spread immediately that the woman killed was 25, 21, a mere teenager. In actual fact, Ashli was 35. But the details didn’t matter. She was a young, white woman in the prime of her life shot dead by a Black officer. People were quick to point out that she was a veteran—a war hero, even—purportedly upholding her oath to defend the Constitution when she died.

On far-right, pro-Trump message boards post-January 6, Ashli was called a freedom fighter and the “first victim of the second Civil War.” One person wrote: “Your blood will not be in vain. We will avenge you.”

Rosin: People who came to January 6 thought they were saving our democracy from evil forces trying to steal an election.

Three years later, some of them still think that. And now, those same evil forces are keeping J6 “freedom fighters” in prison. Justice for January 6—that’s what those window stickers on the Chevy are about.

Ober: This conspiracy has gotten more elaborate over time: The insurrection was a setup, or, The prosecution of January 6 rioters represented gross government overreach, or, The government can turn on its own citizens, even kill them.

Rosin: A lot of the people who believe these things have taken their cues from one woman: Ashli’s mother. Her name is Micki Witthoeft.

Micki Witthoeft: Ashli was a beloved daughter, wife, sister, granddaughter, niece, and aunt. But beyond that, she was the single bravest person I have ever known. She was the quintessential American woman. Today is a dark day for our family and this country, for they have lost a true patriot. I would like to invite Donald J. Trump to say her name—

[Music]

Ober: It took us a minute, but with the help of some friends, we finally figured out that Micki was our new neighbor. I wasn’t sure what I thought about having Ashli Babbitt’s grieving mother come back to the place where her daughter was killed. Why was she here, in our D.C. neighborhood? What did she want? Was there some sort of future Jan. 6 on the horizon? It all felt just a little too close for comfort.

In the days after our run-in with the neighbor, I Googled ’til my eyeballs dried out. There were a lot of videos on social media that featured Micki but not a lot of solid information. I reported what I could find to Hanna.

Ober: Do you want to know what the house is called?

Rosin: What?

Ober: The Eagle’s Nest.

Rosin: Oh, stop. (Laughs.) What?

Ober: Yeah.

Rosin: No, we don’t have the Eagle’s Nest in our neighborhood.

Ober: What does the Eagle’s Nest mean to you?

Rosin: Some patriot thing.

Ober: No. Well, sure, one would think, Oh, it’s patriotic, right? American Eagle.

Rosin: Mm-hmm.

Ober: It’s where all the eagles go. But do you know who else had a very particular property called the Eagle’s Nest?

Rosin: No.

Ober: Well, I’ll tell you. It’s Adolf Hitler. However, to quote Micki, who explained to HuffPost why they called the house the Eagle’s Nest:

Ober: She said, We call our house the Eagle’s Nest, which some would say was Hitler’s hideout. But we’re American citizens, and we won that war, and we’re taking back the name. So this is absolutely not an ode to Hitler.

Ober: Here’s what else I found out: The online videos of Micki didn’t exactly make me want to bring over a tray of homemade, “Welcome to the neighborhood” brownies. Lots of shouting and scowling and general unpleasantness.

Witthoeft: Why are you all here if you’re going to let that happen? He said, Why the hell are you all here?

Person 2: He said that to you? That was very unprofessional!

Person 3: They’re fascists.

Ober: In one clip online, Micki is being arrested for “blocking and obstructing roadways.” She was at a march to honor the second anniversary of her daughter’s death, and she walked into the street one too many times. The D.C. cops did not appreciate that, and they let her know it.

It wasn’t the only time she got into it with the cops. A year later—

Witthoeft: I try to show y’all respect. I’ve been arrested twice, and I’ve done it peacefully. That’s bullshit. Your man is bullshit. That’s bullshit.

Officer: I wasn’t down here, so I can speak to how—

Ober: There were more than a few videos of Micki and her housemates getting into dustups with D.C. folks who didn’t seem to appreciate their presence in their city.

Person 1: Get the fuck outta here.

Person 2: Get the fuck off of me, bitch. Get the fuck off, the fuck off. Get the fuck off.

Person 3: Hey! We caught it on video.

Person 2: Stop fucking touching my shit.

Person 3: Get out of here, you pansy.

Ober: But later, in the same video, there’s this: Our new neighbors are getting harassed by anti-J6 protestors, folks who like to chalk the sidewalk with phrases like “Micki is a grifter.” There are a number of D.C. cops on the scene. I get tense just watching it. Finally, Micki snaps and screams at them.

Officer: I heard all the commotion. That’s why I got out. I can’t see—I didn’t see what happened out here.

Person 2: I had to beg him to get out of his car.

Witthoeft: You can tell your man that the reason I’m here is because three years ago today, y’all killed my kid. That’s why I’m here.

[Music]

Ober: Right. She’s a mom, and the police killed her kid. That’s why she’s here. She wants to make sure her dead daughter isn’t forgotten and that someone is held accountable for what happened.

And one way to do that is to maybe get yourself arrested, or at least show up everywhere—January 6 trials, congressional hearings, the Supreme Court, rallies, marches, my neighborhood.

Another way for people to take notice? A nightly vigil outside the D.C. jail, every single night for more than 700 nights.

Rosin: And we mean every night, in the rain or scorching heat. Without fail, Micki and a few supporters stand on what they call Freedom Corner and talk on the phone with the J6 defendants held inside the jail.

Ober: As I explained to Hanna:

Ober: Every night at 7 p.m., these apparently true patriots—

Rosin: Mm-hmm.

Ober: —come out, and they have a vigil for all of the January 6 defendants who are currently being held in the jail, either awaiting trial or awaiting sentencing.

Rosin: Mm-hmm.

Ober: And every night, they get a January 6 inmate on the phone, and they put them on the speaker, and then they join in singing, like, the national anthem or “America the Beautiful,” and they’re chanting, like, “Justice for Ashli.” And the evening ends, often, with “God Bless [the U.S.A.],” Lee Greenwood.

Rosin: Who’s the “they”?

Ober: So there’s a small cadre of true believers who believe that the people in the D.C. jail are political prisoners.

Rosin: Interesting.

[Music]

Rosin: Interesting is a boring thing to say. I get that. But I was only just starting to put this whole picture together, that Micki and her friends were not in D.C. just to cause chaos. They were here to push a narrative that these people—the same ones who turned our city upside down—were victims of a colossal injustice. And also, that January 6 was actually a totally appropriate exercise of freedom and liberty.

And their version of the story was getting traction with some important people—actually, the most important person.

Trump: I am the political prisoner of a failing nation, but I will soon be free on November 5, the most important day in the history of our country, and we will together make America great again. Thank you.

Rosin: If our interactions with our new neighbors had unfolded more like the typical neighborhood showdown—my MAGA hat versus your dump trump sign—things might have been easier because that would be just straight-up neighbor warfare, pure mutual hatred.

Ober: But it didn’t happen that way. Instead, two opposite dramas unfolded: (1) We got an up-close, intimate view of how history gets rewritten. Call it the lost-cause narrative for the 21st century: A group of Americans immediately sets to work retooling the history of an event through tweets and podcasts and viral video clips, in a way that distorts collective memory forever.

Rosin: But then, (2) our new neighbors became real people to us. We also got an up-close, intimate view of them, their monumental grief, their sleepless nights, their deep friendship—things that make it harder to purely hate on someone.

Ober: This woman, Micki Witthoeft, is many things to many people—Mama Micki to the January 6 defendants, mother of a dead domestic terrorist to others. But to us, she’s something else—she’s our neighbor.

Ober: Do you want to hear something rotten?

Micki: I don’t know if I do, but I will.

Ober: After months of getting to know Micki, I felt like I needed to confess something. She had been telling me how people in the neighborhood had generally been nice to them, except for this one time. One of her roommates, Nicole, had been sitting in the car, and these two women walked by and said something totally rude, and—I know, you’ve already heard the story before.

Ober: Nicole sitting in the car—that was me. And I’m fully disgusted with myself and embarrassed. Like, because that’s not how I want to be treated, and that’s not how I want to think about people. But I did it.

Micki: Oh, well, I’m surprised you—I’m impressed that you admitted that to me. I really am. That’s going to be interesting when I tell Nicole.

Ober: Since that incident, I’ve spent a lot of time with Micki trying to understand her cause, her politics, and her anger. I’ve had many moments where I thought: What the hell am I doing, getting all caught up in their revisionist history of January 6? But what I can tell you is that Micki is not who I thought she was.

She is every bit as fiery as she comes off in speeches and confrontations with people who want her out of this city. After nearly a year of knowing her, I’m still terrified of her. I have never before in my life met a person with such penetrating eyes, and she wields them to great effect. If she is staring you down, I promise you, you will find no relief.

Ober: So the window rolls down, and I guess Nicole said, you know, “Justice for J6!” Right? Reflexively, in two seconds, I go, “Well, you’re in the wrong neighborhood for that.” Right? Now, I feel like you would appreciate that because sometimes things pop out of your mouth that maybe you didn’t think about. I am a person who is very guilty of that, as my mouth runs away with me.

So, I said that, and she goes, “We live here now. So suck it, bitch.” (Laughs.)

Micki: That’s my Nicole. (Laughs.)

Ober: And I was like, Well, okay.

[Music]

Rosin: When we first ran into the militiamobile, we didn’t know anything about Micki and her crew. We thought anyone could be living in that house, with that car. Maybe it was an actual militia headquarters with a cache of weapons in the basement. Maybe it was just some wacko whose patriotism had gone totally sideways.

Ober: But now, after nearly a year of reporting this story, we know so much more. And in the rest of the series, we are going to take you through this upside-down world we landed in—where we found ourselves talking conspiracies.

Micki: I don’t know what I believe them capable of. Is it eating babies and drinking their blood? I don’t think so. But I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know what they’re up to.

Ober: How you can suddenly find yourself joking with January 6ers about militias?

Nicole: If you’re going to come down here, you’ve got to know your militias straight.

Ober: You know, I can’t—there are too many splinter groups and, you know.

Nicole: There’s factions. There’s levels. There’s color coding. (Laughs.)

Ober: Listen. When the gay militia happens, I’m there, okay? When that happens. Until then—

Nicole: Well, we’re a country of militias, you know.

Ober: And wondering, What could possibly be coming for us?

Rosin: Like, how long are you going to stay in D.C.?

Brandon Fellows: I plan to stay ’til, like, January 7. (Laughs.)

Rosin: That feels vaguely threatening.

Fellows: I could see why you would say that.

Rosin: That’s coming up on We Live Here Now.

Ober: We Live Here Now is a production of The Atlantic. The show was reported, written, and executive produced by me, Lauren Ober. Hanna Rosin reported, wrote, and edited the series. Our senior producer is Rider Alsop. Our producer is Ethan Brooks. Original scoring, sound design, and mix engineering by Brendan Baker.

This series was edited by Scott Stossel and Claudine Ebeid. Fact-checking by Michelle Ciarrocca. Art direction by Colin Hunter. Project management by Nancy DeVille.

Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

The Atlantic’s executive editor is Adrienne LaFrance. Jeffrey Goldberg is The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief.

Nicole. And then did I say something like, Well, bitch, I live here now, or something?

Ober: Very close to that. “We live here now, so—”

Nicole: Get used to it?

Ober: No.

Nicole: Suck it? Fuck it?

Ober: No. You’re right on the “suck it.”

Nicole: (Laughs.) I don’t know.

Ober: “Suck it,” what? “Suck it,” who?

Nicole: Suck it, fascist? (Laughs.) So much more fascist than me. Don’t tell me what I said.

Ober: You said, “Suck it, bitch.”

Nicole: Oh! Okay. Okay.


Читать статью полностью на: theatlantic.com
What’s the best way to remove stains from siding?
Painting is always a safe choice, but you could try cleaning first. Here’s how to do it.
washingtonpost.com
L.A. Affairs: We made fun of toxic men at the gym. Then they started acting like one
They repeatedly said they were happy with how the friendship was, that they would be just as happy if we never had sex and just slept next to each other at night.
latimes.com
Negotiations between farmworkers and Wonderful Co. can continue, appellate court rules
An appellate court ruling is the latest twist in a dispute over the UFW’s unionization campaign at Wonderful Nurseries, the largest grapevine nursery in the U.S.
latimes.com
The Story Behind Netflix’s Moving Documentary The Remarkable Life of Ibelin
The film focuses on a Norwegian gamer who died at 25, only for his parents to discover he had a richer online life than they could have imagined.
time.com
Yankees vs. Dodgers Game 1 prediction: World Series odds, picks, bets
Two No. 1 seeds and both of America’s biggest sports markets playing for a World Series makes for some tight betting lines. 
nypost.com
Meet the Bronx Bombers: The Yankees roster set to play for World Series
A look at the 27 Yankees players set to take on the Dodgers in the 2024 World Series, starting with Friday's Game 1.
nypost.com
How a small piece of a bathroom door lock helped solve a nurse's murder
A metal ring, about the size of a quarter, led to Matthew Ecker's murder charge for the death of Alexandra Pennig.
cbsnews.com
NFL world erupts in fury over missed facemask penalty after Vikings' Sam Darnold has helmet twisted around
A missed facemask penalty on the Los Angeles Rams late in their win over the Minnesota Vikings was all the NFL world was talking about on Thursday night.
foxnews.com
16 gunmen killed, car bomb wounds 3 police officers in Mexico
Multiple clashes left at least 16 people dead on the same day that a car bomb left outside a police station in western Mexico wounded three officers.
cbsnews.com
Ohio abortion ban ruled unconstitutional in wake of voter-OK'd referendum
The most far-reaching of Ohio's laws restricting abortion was struck down by a county judge who said last year's voter-approved amendment enshrining reproductive rights​ renders the law unconstitutional.
cbsnews.com
International court prosecutor who charged Netanyahu accused of sexual misconduct by aide
Court officials have said they may have been made as part of an Israeli intelligence smear campaign.
nypost.com
Chef Joseph Gannascoli's penne alla vodka
The 'Sopranos' actor and chef shares a dish for World Pasta Day, celebrated every Oct. 25, on 'Fox & Friends.'
foxnews.com
Chef Joseph Gannascoli's penne alla vodka
The 'Sopranos' actor and chef shares a dish for World Pasta Day, celebrated every Oct. 25, on 'Fox & Friends.'
foxnews.com
Naomi Campbell breaks silence on ex-boyfriend Liam Payne’s death
The British supermodel, 54, dated the late One Direction star for four months in 2019 when she was aged 48 and he was 25.
nypost.com
Bearded perp covers his face in markers after threatening to blow up Ulta Beauty store
Timothy Lincoln, 42, was nabbed after he made the terrorizing remarks outside the Ulta Beauty store in Alabama last Saturday.
nypost.com
Who has the most riding on this much-anticipated Yankees-Dodgers World Series
The stakes are higher than many Fall Classics because of the cities and the stars, because of legacies, because it will be memorable, regardless of the outcome.
nypost.com
How do Jayden Daniels and Caleb Williams compare? A statistical look.
The numbers confirm what’s becoming clear: The rookie quarterbacks for the Commanders and Bears can both play at a high level.
washingtonpost.com
The Everyday Warfare of Voting in America
Election officials are under siege.
theatlantic.com
The Sports Report: With Cooper Kupp and Puka Nacua back, Rams beat Vikings
Receivers Cooper Kupp and Puka Nacua returned to the lineup and the two stars helped the Rams defeat Minnesota.
latimes.com
Why the wealthy are renting homes instead of buying in New York City
You don’t have to believe Manhattan’s brokers when they say the wealthy have turned to renting — the numbers say it all. 
nypost.com
Simone Biles continues to defend husband Jonathan Owens after viral ‘catch’ comment: ‘Yeah I’m gonna come at you guys’
In December 2023, the Chicago Bears safety said he was the "catch" in his relationship with Biles, who is the most decorated Olympic gymnast ever.
nypost.com
Trump declares Harris campaign is ‘imploding' during Las Vegas rally and more top headlines
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
foxnews.com
Student leaders at CUNY grad school pass anti-Israel resolution that bans spending on products like Sabra hummus, Starbucks
The student government at the CUNY Graduate Center approved a boycott resolution that would bar student activity fees and other resources under its control from being used to buy "products or services that support or benefit from the US-backed Israeli occupation of Palestine."
nypost.com
Charles Barkley says he's 'never leaving Phoenix alive,' eventually wants ashes spread in Las Vegas casino
The Basketball Hall of Famer Charles Barkley has maintained a home in the Phoenix area for nearly three decades and recently noted the destination will be his "final stop."
foxnews.com
Former Vatican ambassador to US calls Harris ‘an infernal monster who obeys Satan’
“For a Catholic, there can be no question: voting for Kamala Harris is morally inadmissible and constitutes a very grave sin," Carlo Maria Vigano said, calling the vice president "an infernal monster who obeys Satan."
nypost.com
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs mixed star-studded bashes with raucous ‘Freak Off’ sex parties after VMAs and Super Bowl, videos reveal
The videos reviewed by The Post are part of the same archive that includes footage that appears to show Diddy having sex with a much younger male A-list star.
nypost.com
Shaq floats controversial idea to increase WNBA viewers, salaries: 'Nobody is going to like my solution'
Basketball Hall of Famer Shaquille O'Neal floated a controversial idea on a way to drive up WNBA viewership and increase players' salaries.
foxnews.com
Mafia fugitive caught in Colombia seen at infamous drug lord's grave
Luigi Belvedere has been sentenced to almost 19 years in jail for international drug trafficking but has been on the run since December 2020.
cbsnews.com
The Most Opinionated Man in America
Mike Solana, a Peter Thiel protégé, has made his Pirate Wires newsletter a must-read among the anti-woke investor class—and a window into what the most powerful people in tech really think.
theatlantic.com
What to watch with your kids: ‘Venom: The Last Dance,’ ‘Poppa’s House’ and more
Common Sense Media also reviews “Conclave” and “Lego Marvel Avengers: Mission Demolition.”
washingtonpost.com
The high-pressure world of moving priceless museum art
Art moving, involving security escorts and heist-like intricacy, is where manual labor meets the sublime.
washingtonpost.com
How to get into art museums for free
Many museums charge admission fees. But there are almost always ways around them.
washingtonpost.com
How dudes with podcasts became the kings of the election
Theo Von attends a Vanderbilt football match against the Alabama Crimson Tide at FirstBank Stadium on October 5, 2024, in Nashville, Tennessee. | Vanderbilt Athletics/University Images via Getty Images In 2015, when Barack Obama appeared on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast, it was a big event precisely because it was a one-off — an exception rather than a rule. Almost a decade later, the media landscape has changed so completely that independent podcasters with little if any journalism experience seem to have an easier time getting a sit-down with presidential candidates than major news outlets do. Rumors have swirled of a Kamala Harris interview with Joe Rogan, the godfather of politicized “apolitical” podcasters. While that rumor is still unconfirmed, this week a Rogan sit-down with Donald Trump was confirmed, quickly followed by a new report that Harris will appear on football icon Shannon Sharpe’s podcast Club Shay Shay — all moves signaling that the role of these independent agents in the media ecosystem has become more significant than ever.  The blitz of Joe Everyman podcasts that Trump has done on the campaign trail has turned heads, from Impaulsive to Bussin’ With the Boys, as has Harris’s recent appearance on the Call Her Daddy podcast and Tim Walz’s appearance on the SmartLess podcast. What these podcasters have in common — besides scoring conversations with the people vying for the White House — is that they’re nonchalantly normie. As much as a “middle” still exists in America, you can find it among this lot, a good chunk of whom claim to avoid politics, even if they can’t help stumbling into political topics.  Many of them are comedians and entertainers by profession, and few of them have worked in traditional newsrooms. They don’t all claim to be particularly well-informed about any topic on offer, and many are, at best, just casually invested in learning: Witness Theo Von’s August interview with Trump, in which he brought up serious topics, mainly the opioid epidemic, but without anything substantive to say about them. The former Road Rules star wasn’t exactly equipped to push back against any of Trump’s positions.  Call Her Daddy’s host Alex Cooper did stick mainly to substantive issues during Harris’s interview, but she was apologetic about it, reminding her audiences that she typically avoids politics “because I want Call Her Daddy to be a place where everyone feels comfortable tuning in.” The apolitical stance extends to booking as well; though no podcast has yet hosted both candidates, multiple podcasters, including Cooper and Von, have stated that they have invited both candidates to come on their shows. What, then, explains the politicians’ efforts to reach these podcast audiences? Their listener numbers, typically in the low millions, may seem small, but they’re not as small as you think. They not only rival a traditional audience of, say, 60 Minutes’ 6 million viewers, but also represent loyal listeners likely to be influenced by the podcast appearance. Still, there’s even more at work here. Let’s look at the podcasters themselves. The podcasters Adin Ross, streamer How many people are tuning in? 1.5 million Kick subscribers; 2.6 million YouTube views Who is he? Adin Ross is a notorious video game streamer. Earlier this year, out of what he indicated to Theo Von was a wish to please his sons, Trump sat down with a ring of podcasters known for covering UFC fandom. Trump has also done appearances with a range of nontraditional right-wing pundits including YouTubers and radio hosts, as has JD Vance, but the UFC circuit clearly gained him the most attention — despite very little discussion of wrestling. While all of these UFC hosts have some degree of controversy, the dubious prize for amplifying Trump most directly to the “manosphere” arguably goes to Adin Ross.  Last year, reportedly after years of flirting with being canceled, Ross was finally permanently banned from Twitch for homophobic slurs and other offensive comments. Known for hobnobbing with Andrew Tate and promoting toxic masculinity and white supremacists, Ross retreated to rival platform Kick, of which he now owns 30 percent. Though Kick is relatively niche — with 1.5 million subscribers, Ross is the platform’s biggest account — his sit-down with Trump was also cross-posted to Ross’s YouTube channel, where it’s picked up another 2.6 million views in the two months since it aired. (Ross, who’s also a fan of Elon Musk, thanked Trump for his drop-in by … gifting him a Cybertruck.) Logan Paul’s Impaulsive podcast, also streaming on YouTube How many people are tuning in? Lots of podcast listeners; 4.7 million YouTube subscribers; 6.6 million views Who is he? A former YouTube prankster and vlogger alongside his brother Jake, Logan Paul is best known for blowing up his enormously successful career with one 2018 video in which he notoriously filmed a dead body in Japan’s Aokigahara Forest. He subsequently embarked on an impressively successful redemption arc; Impaulsive, a conversational weekly podcast and YouTube stream with Paul, his co-hosts, and guests, has arguably played the biggest role in rehabilitating his former immature image into something approaching respectability. It’s currently reportedly ranked in the top 50 podcasts across all platforms. His chat with Trump was conversational, if not particularly enlightening; the pair discussed everything from aliens (Trump thinks they might exist) to AI; the deepest issue was arguably a debate about whether Mike Tyson is too old to box. Theo Von How many people are tuning in? A whole lot of podcast listeners; 3.2 million YouTube subscribers; 14 million views Who is he? The most prominent of the UFC trio, Theo Von’s This Past Weekend is reportedly in the Spotify top 20, as well as among the top 10 podcasts across all platforms nationally. Von, a former MTV reality regular turned stand-up comic turned podcaster, has only gotten bigger since his interview with Trump. The event generated a massively viral clip of Trump speculating about drug use and has since racked up a non-paltry 14 million views. Von reportedly reached out to Kamala Harris for an interview as well; he’s also since interviewed Trump’s running mate JD Vance, including an extensive conversation about Vance’s family’s struggles with addiction. He also interviewed Bernie Sanders in August. Andrew Schulz, Flagrant How many people are tuning in? 1.77 million YouTube subscribers; 4.5 million views Who is he? One of many standup comics-turned-podcasters on the list, Schulz is another comedian who, like fellow Trump interviewer Von, purports to be apolitical but nurses contrarian anti-woke takes. Another MTV alum, he co-hosts the Flagrant podcast with fellow comedian Akaash Singh; he also co-hosts the Brilliant Idiots podcast with Charlamagne tha God, who recently interviewed Harris.  It’s Trump’s erratic interview on Flagrant, which has garnered 4.5 million views in a week, that’s gotten much of the recent attention. Trump discussed the two recent assassination attempts made against him, implying at one point that both shooters may have been working with other people, including nefarious foreign entities like Iran. The rest of the interview mainly served as fodder for Schulz to make jokes and contributed little else substantive to the conversation.  That didn’t stop Schulz from facing backlash; the Brooklyn Academy of Music promptly canceled an appearance by Schulz in response to the platforming of Donald Trump. Charlamagne tha God and The Breakfast Club How many people are tuning in? More than 4 million morning radio listeners in over 80 markets; IHeartRadio has over 860 livestream stations nationwide Who is he? Among the podcasters on this list, Charlamagne tha God is arguably the one who represents traditional media, albeit of the pop culture variety. The longtime comedian first gained his following through his association with Wendy Williams and VH1. He and Schulz were regulars on MTV’s Guy Code before they joined forces on The Brilliant Idiots. Charlamagne’s real claim to fame, however, is his longtime gig as host for the syndicated New York-based morning radio show The Breakfast Club, a staple of 2010s radio that has branched into a podcast network and a YouTube channel.  The Breakfast Club, like many of the entrants on this list, clearly muddies the waters between radio show, YouTube stream, and podcast, but the show’s expanding mediums seem crucial to its longevity. The show, which was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2020, is known for featuring high-profile celebrity interviews, and Kamala Harris was no exception: She recently did a special “Audio Town Hall” with The Breakfast Club, streamed out of Detroit on the IHeart radio network and hosted by Charlamagne. Charlamagne and Harris candidly agreed that Donald Trump is a fascist — a statement you’re unlikely to hear coming from a more traditional interview platform. Alex Cooper, Call Her Daddy podcast How many people are tuning in? A megaton; it’s the No. 4 podcast in the US Who is she? Per NPR, woman-centered podcast Call Her Daddy boasts an even split between Democrats and Republicans, mostly white. The rare host that’s on the cusp of Gen Z, creator Alex Cooper created her podcast with her roommate just a year after she graduated from college, whereupon it was promptly acquired by Barstool Sports and catapulted to popularity. (Cooper exited Barstool in 2021.) Though Cooper currently has all the attention for the recent Harris interview, which focused mainly on reproductive freedom and health care for women, she’s already onto a bigger catch: interviewing Taylor Swift. Bussin’ With the Boys How many people are tuning in? Plenty; it’s one of the most popular sports podcasts in the US with 545k subscribers and 391k views on YouTube Who are they? Former Tennessee Titans turned besties turned podcasters, hosts Will Compton and Taylor Lewan have made a name for themselves among sports audiences with this conversational Barstool Sports podcast. Though it wasn’t about sports, they scored Donald Trump’s longest interview yet; he nattered for over two hours last week, chatting about everything from politics to Elon Musk and social media. He even discussed doing all these podcasts, telling Compton and Lewan that the new crop of podcasters are “young guys and they’re very different in some cases.”  “It may have to do with all of my sons. They’re young … This is a young world … I’ve done a few of them and they’ve done well.”  Joe Rogan, The Joe Rogan Experience How many people are tuning in: Legions; Rogan has been the most-listened-to podcast in the country for nearly a decade and currently has over 30 million subscribers between YouTube and Spotify. Who is he? Yet another standup comic slash reality TV star turned podcaster, Rogan made it big in the podcast industry by embracing the medium early and being incredibly prolific, churning out hours of content weekly. His fans praise what they view as his down-to-earth, moderate style, but he balances that out with plenty of controversy. Shannon Sharpe, Club Shay Shay How many people are tuning in? 3.6 million YouTube subscribers and lots of podcast listeners; as of 2024, it’s the No. 11 podcast in the country. Who is he? Former Denver Bronco, NFL Hall of Famer, and veteran sports broadcaster Shannon Sharpe started Club Shay Shay in 2020 when he was still perhaps best known as a morning show host on Fox. Last year, however, he transitioned his podcast to a new network and got a new gig with ESPN, which may have helped catapult Club Shay Shay into the upper echelon of the podcast industry. Despite inadvertently recently livestreaming a sexual encounter to shocked followers, Sharpe hasn’t lost his appeal: Kamala Harris will reportedly tape an interview with him to be broadcast on October 28.   Podcasts are where the people are In a post-pandemic culture where parasocial relationships have grown more frequent and intense, podcasts have become more important than ever. They’re right in people’s ears, offering a uniquely intimate form of connection, not only to the hosts but to the events and ideas they’re platforming. They’re transforming the way audiences learn about issues of the day, keeping them engaged and (sort of) aware; the public’s love of podcasting just keeps growing, with audiences expanding, getting younger, and listening longer and more frequently. The medium, once relegated to extremely online audiences with niche interests, has gradually become more mainstream and wide-reaching; 42 percent of Americans over age 12 listened to a podcast in the last month, and that number is only going up.  Conversely, the public’s trust in media keeps plunging lower across the ideological spectrum: Less than a third of Americans say they have confidence in the accuracy of traditional news mediums, and the number of adults getting their news from actual news sources keeps declining year over year. Podcasts are able to reach audiences that have given up on traditional media, even as the line between podcasters and journalists gets blurry and the boundaries between mediums get fuzzier. The convergence of digital media with the creator economy and vice versa has created whole new submodes of influencers, from the kind that siphon and recycle other sorts of content to the kind that exist entirely as hot takes on TikTok.  Increasingly, journalists with a proper newsroom background, like internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz and Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias, have traded their former jobs for autonomy, independence, and loyal fan followings. Traditional reporters are also Substack influencers, while podcasts are also livestreams on Twitch and/or videos on YouTube and TikTok. All of this is causing seismic rifts and ever more unreliable journalism in a media environment in which the public already distrusts the media. As the popularity of podcasts keeps growing, these interviews with major public figures arguably add a patina of unearned prestige and importance, even as professional media outlets take hit after hit. In this messier media landscape, it’s easy to see why so many of these podcasters have so much sway with their audiences — and why politicians might want to tap into that. That accessibility is a double-edged sword, however, since most of these podcasters lack editorial oversight. Without a journalism background, podcasters often aren’t the best people to critique or fact-check their guests, especially high-profile ones. Creators of all kinds prioritize personality and charm over journalistic rigor and information; as with the medium itself, the delineation between what matters for what reason has broken down. Still, audiences don’t often care; the bar for podcast media is lower, and audience expectations for podcasters to be “journalists” in the traditional sense are largely nonexistent. Podcasters like Von often benefit from a rough-and-ready style that allows them to contrast themselves with stodgy traditional media. It’s not that the candidates are completely eschewing traditional media; Harris’s press parade has included a wide range of other outlets and interviewers, including legacy media, like her recent NBC News interview, as well as several that aren’t particularly politically focused, like veteran “shock jock” Sirius host Howard Stern, who endorsed her. Trump also recently did an interview with Bloomberg’s business podcast, while Tim Walz sat down for an interview with The Ezra Klein Show for the New York Times; Trump running mate JD Vance has likewise been hitting both traditional and non-traditional media hard.  The podcast format (alongside its increasingly indistinguishable twin, the livestream) seems to matter more and more. Vulture noted that Trump’s combined appearances on Schulz’s and Von’s podcasts have dwarfed the paltry views Harris received for her appearance on Call Her Daddy, despite the latter show reportedly being the most popular podcast among women on Spotify. (Her appearance on The View seems to have done better, an indication that older audiences still matter.) Still, Harris’s appearance on Call Her Daddy proved controversial among her constituents, while Trump’s appearances on a broad litany of dudebro podcasts have gone relatively unremarked upon — even though the latter are arguably demonstrably influencing a generation of voters. That lack of pushback against Trump’s interview choices may also reflect the increasingly decentralized media landscape, where “influence” is more nebulous and subjective than ever while simultaneously becoming more microtargeted and intense. A podcaster like Cooper or Von may reach a fraction of the audience of 60 Minutes, but the kinds of viewers they reach aren’t likely to be found watching the news. As Vulture’s Nick Quah observes, “We’ve long arrived at a place where Americans, now polarized beyond recognition, prefer news sources that align with their ideology, if they even consume much news at all … In those arenas, hosts don’t care about executing ‘good’ or challenging interviews in the classic journalistic sense. The interview just has to make sense to their audience.” That also means that interviews no longer push candidates to reckon with serious, even unpleasant or difficult topics. The kinds of questions that identify a strong leader, as opposed to one who’s merely affable and interviews well, aren’t very likely to arise on a UFC podcast. But that’s also something candidates may prefer; after all, who wants to deal with hard-hitting questions from journalists when they could field softballs from everyday citizens who aren’t backed by a team of editors and fact-checkers? These interviews are easy, fun, and personable, which also might be a welcome alternative to moderated, issue-focused debates — even if they’re a disservice to voters. That’s the unfortunate downside to all of this: No matter how you spin it, these interviews are a poor substitute for journalistic rigor, accountability, and editorial oversight. They may arguably even be a hindrance to democracy in an age where it faces multiple existential threats. We typically expect our leaders and experts to be better than the public at understanding and dealing with such enormous problems and dire realities. Yet increasingly, our leaders and experts are being replaced by self-appointed influencers with no actual expertise. The result is a bleak, livestreamed morass: Even if we’re fond of the voices reaching us through the void, we’re still all fumbling in the dark.
vox.com
The Death of American Exceptionalism
The prevalence of positive illusions is one of the most well-established findings in psychology. Most people have an exaggerated view of their own abilities and expect that more good things—and fewer bad things—will happen to them than is likely.Despite being unrealistic, such beliefs have benefits: Overly positive people are happier, cope better with adversity, and think they have more control over their life. Believing that things are a little better than they actually are may be necessary for robust mental health.In a similar way, many citizens hold overly positive, but possibly necessary, beliefs about their country. A sense of national pride can foster community and bring people together, and it’s often a sign of a thriving democracy. In the United States, one source of patriotism is American exceptionalism—the idea that the U.S. is a unique, and uniquely superior, nation. With its origin as a democracy in a world of kingdoms and its emphasis on freedom and opportunity, this narrative goes, the American system is out of the ordinary.Among the young, that belief is rapidly dying. Since 1976, a large nationally representative survey has asked U.S. high-school seniors, 17 and 18 years old, whether they agree that “Despite its many faults, our system of doing things is still the best in the world”: a fairly succinct summary of American exceptionalism. In the early 1980s, 67 percent of high-school seniors agreed that the U.S. system was the best. By 2022, only 27 percent did. Thus, only one out of four American teens now agrees that their country is exceptional.[Read: 20-somethings are in trouble]The decline appears to be mostly untethered to national events. Belief in American exceptionalism went down during the Great Recession of the late 2000s, and also during the economically prosperous years of the 2010s. It declined when the U.S. was at war and also when it was at peace. It declined as income inequality grew rapidly, from 1980 to 2000, and also as inequality moderated after 2000.Support for the idea is now particularly unpopular among liberal teens. As recently as the late 1990s, a majority had agreed that the U.S. system was the best. By 2021–22, that had shrunk to 14 percent—only one out of seven. (Belief in American exceptionalism has declined among conservative teens as well, but much less so: 47 percent of conservative teens believed in the idea in 2021–22.)Even the belief that the founding of the United States was a positive development seems to be on the way out: A recent poll conducted by the Democracy Fund asked Americans if the Founders are “better described as villains” or “as heroes.” Four out of 10 Gen Zers chose “villains,” compared with only one in 10 Boomers. If your country’s Founders are the bad guys instead of the good guys, it becomes much harder to believe that its system is the best in the world—or even worth defending. (Ideas about America are hardly the only beliefs that have bent toward pessimism among American youth in the past two decades. In early 2002, for instance, 23 percent of high-school seniors agreed with the statement “When I think about all the terrible things that have been happening, it is hard for me to hold out much hope for the world.” In early 2019, 40 percent agreed.)Dour views of the nation’s status and possibilities may shape its future. Gen Z may be disillusioned, but it is not, by and large, nihilistic: Today’s young adults are also more interested in taking action than previous generations. From 2014 to 2021–22, an increasing number of high-school seniors agreed that protesting and voting could have “a major impact on how things are run in this country.” Voter turnout among young adults has been higher among Gen Z than previous generations at the same age, and political protests appear to have become more frequent in the eight or so years since Gen Z arrived on college campuses.That, of course, could yield positive changes. One of the most important American ideals, arguably, is that the American project is unfinished, and that society can be made better, generation by generation. Throughout U.S. history, discontent and even righteous anger have often been important correctives to overly broad or unthinking sentiments about the country’s goodness, which, when unchallenged, can perpetuate injustices.But many of Gen Z’s members seem convinced that radical change is necessary—to the model of government, to the economy, to the culture. In a 2020 poll I analyzed for my book Generations, three out of four American Gen Zers—more than any other generation—agreed that “significant changes” were needed to the government’s “fundamental design and structure.” Nearly two-thirds believed that America was not “a fair society,” again a higher rate than older adults. In a 2018 Gallup poll, more 18-to-29-year-olds had a positive view of socialism (51 percent) than of capitalism (45 percent). Some of the ideals, and idealism, that were commonly accepted in previous generations seem to have a looser hold over young adults today.Why has Gen Z turned so definitively toward disillusionment and away from seeing their country as superior?One reason may be their mental health: Twice as many teens and young adults are depressed than in the early 2010s. This is a tragedy—and it’s likely to have wide-reaching effects. Depression isn’t just about emotions; it’s also about cognition. By definition, depressed people see the world in a more negative light. They are less likely to see the positive, including in their country. Increases in depression are larger among liberals, consistent with the larger decline in their belief in American exceptionalism.Changes in news consumption may also play a part. When newspapers were read on paper, all of the news—positive and negative—was printed together. Now negative news is king. Negative articles are almost twice as likely to be shared on social media as positive articles. Social-media algorithms push angry and divisive content. With Gen Z getting most of its information online, it is viewing the country through a negatively skewed funhouse mirror.A third reason may lie in the shifts in high-school American-history curricula. Some—typically liberal—states now spend more time than they once did on the more deplorable facts of the nation’s history, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the massacre of Native Americans, and the Founders’ ownership of slaves. That coverage lays out facts students need to know, but, especially if these events are emphasized more than the country’s more noble endeavors, it may also undermine feelings of national pride.[Read: Are Gen Z men and women really drifting apart?]Finally, Gen Z’s facility with social media may itself be coloring the generation’s views. Gen Z has learned that making a problem look as big and awful as possible is a highly effective way of getting traction on social media. Many problems are often portrayed as profound and systemic, fixable only by fundamental rethinks and institutional purges. It makes everything seem worse than it is.My worry, as a social psychologist who has studied all of the living American generations, is that these various forces—and the pessimism they have generated —could move Gen Z to change systems that are not necessarily broken. That’s especially relevant as this generation comes of age and rises toward political power. Despite the common perception that the system is “rigged” and young people will never attain the wealth Boomers did, for instance, the Federal Reserve of St. Louis recently found that Millennial and Gen Z young adults actually have 25 percent more wealth than Boomers did at the same age. Inflation-adjusted median incomes for American young adults are at all-time highs, and poverty rates for children and younger adults are lower than they were in the early 2000s. The social-media-driven negativity machine may have prevented Gen Z—and all of us—from seeing the good news.Just as the positive views we have about our individual selves may be exaggerated, the idea that the United States is uniquely superior is also, at least in part, an overly optimistic illusion we tell ourselves as a country. But like our positive self-illusions, patriotism also has its benefits, including a more satisfied citizenry and more political stability. With Gen Z unconvinced of the country’s exceptionalism and willing to take action, the U.S. may, in the coming decades, witness an era of extraordinary political change.
theatlantic.com
The Hirshhorn is 50 years old. It needed all of them.
The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden was once an odd fit for Washington — a square peg in a round building. But it is in an ambitious and welcoming phase.
washingtonpost.com
Please stop with party dress codes. Your friends have bills to pay.
Guests don’t need the extra financial pressure of buying an outfit they may wear just once.
washingtonpost.com
I’m a dentist — you should absolutely avoid these 5 popular Halloween candies
Forget ghosts and ghouls — Halloween can get really scary if you have to make an urgent trip to the dentist's office.
nypost.com
Vulnerable NY Republican blasts Dem challenger's progressive endorsement after moderate showing at debate
Rep. Brandon Williams, R-N.Y., campaign slammed his opponent John Mannion in the competitive House race of running on an "anti-cop, pro-Hamas" ballot.
foxnews.com
Top prosecutor at U.N.'s highest court denies sexual misconduct claims
As ICC prosecutor Karim Khan sought charges against Hamas leaders and Israeli PM Netanyahu, he faced allegations of sexual misconduct.
cbsnews.com
WWE legend Hulk Hogan says Trump assassination attempt forced him to speak up: 'This has to stop'
Pro wrestling legend Hulk Hogan recalled why he decided to speak at the Republican National Convention and support former President Donald Trump in an interview on Wednesday.
foxnews.com
Rapper Lil Durk charged with murder-for-hire in retaliation for the killing of musician King Von
The "All My Life" hitmaker, 32, is currently being held at Broward County Jail in Florida without bond.
nypost.com
LA actor recalls Fernando Valenzuela's impact on Dodgers culture after stadium forced mass evictions on locals
Hollywood actor Danny Trejo recounted his experience as a Mexican Dodgers fan growing up in Los Angeles and the impact of Fernando Valenzuela.
foxnews.com
Maine marking one year since worst mass shooting in its history
Maine residents whose sense of safety was shattered last year by the deadliest mass shooting in the state's history planned to mark the day Friday in ways big and small, including a planned memorial service.
cbsnews.com
Fox News ‘Antisemitism Exposed’ Newsletter: Israel-US relations crippled by damaging leak
Fox News' "Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world.
foxnews.com
Why it’ll be even harder for Trump to steal the election this time
Former Trump lawyer John Eastman. The fight over who will become the next president is unlikely to end on Election Day if Vice President Kamala Harris prevails in the upcoming election.  We know this because of former President Donald Trump’s behavior after he lost the 2020 election. Trump didn’t just incite an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021; he and his fellow Republicans filed a wave of lawsuits seeking to skew the election results. And, with the help of some of the most unscrupulous lawyers in the country, Trump devised a fantastical scheme to replace legitimate members of the Electoral College with his own loyalists. Yet, while more shenanigans are almost certainly inevitable if Trump comes up short in November, the legal landscape in 2024 is less favorable to these kinds of dirty tricks than it was in 2020. The biggest reason for that is that lawyers thrive on novelty, while courts are supposed to follow previous precedents when deciding new cases. In 2020, the world was suffering from the unusual calamity of the pandemic, which raised all sorts of legal questions that courts had not confronted before. That gave judges who were inclined to rule in Trump’s favor —Republicans control the federal judiciary — more leeway to place a thumb on the scale favoring the Republican Party and to do so without being accused of violating a clear precedent to the contrary. In 2024, by contrast, large swaths of Americans are no longer cowering in their homes, fearful that a trip to the polls could infect them with Covid-19. Both the law and the nature of the two parties’ coalitions have shifted in ways that make it harder for Republicans to toy with who is able to cast a ballot. That’s not to say anyone should expect Harris to simply be able to walk into the White House, even if she wins fair and square. If Harris prevails, Trump lawsuits seeking to overturn her victory are all but inevitable, as could be attempts to repeat the January 6 insurrection. Indeed, some of this legal maneuvering has already begun. On Wednesday evening, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Republican Party’s claim that certain voters who cast mailed-in ballots improperly should effectively be disenfranchised, rather than being given another opportunity to vote on Election Day. It is probably inevitable that this case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court. If the highest Court embraces the GOP’s argument, that could potentially flip the result of an extraordinarily close election to Trump — but only if the winner of the presidential election all comes down to Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania race is very close. It is difficult to predict in advance how many ballots will be impacted by this case, which is known as Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections, during the 2024 cycle, but we’re probably only talking about enough votes to increase Harris’s vote count by maybe a few thousand. Overall, moreover — even taking into account the Genser case — Trump’s lawyers have less to work with this year than they did four years ago. Novel legal issues breed bad law The worst place to be, if you are a lawyer, is arguing a truly novel case before a hostile panel of judges. Democrats already got a taste of this nightmare earlier this year. There’s never been a viable presidential candidate who incited an insurrection. Nor has there been one who, while previously serving as president, committed very serious crimes while in office. These unique facts produced unprecedented court proceedings, including a Colorado Supreme Court decision holding Trump ineligible for the presidency because of his role in the insurrection and a criminal prosecution of a former president. The Republican-controlled Supreme Court, however, seized upon these unique cases to hand down two extraordinarily pro-Trump decisions: one that effectively neutralized the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionist presidents for the duration of the 2024 election, and another that gave Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes he committed using the power of the presidency. The only good thing that can be said about these decisions is that they are in the past. Trump’s criminality did raise novel legal questions, but those questions have now been resolved. It’s hard to see how Trump’s lawyers could leverage the fact that he incited an insurrection in 2020 to challenge the result of the 2024 election, or to change how that election is conducted any more than he already has. The pandemic is over. That’s bad news for Trump’s legal team. The 2020 election itself raised a host of novel legal questions, but those questions largely emerged from the highly unusual circumstances created by the Covid-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, many voters understandably did not wish to vote in an indoor polling place where they could potentially catch the coronavirus from a fellow citizen. So state and federal officials altered election procedures in many states to make it easier to cast ballots by mail. In Wisconsin, for example, a federal judge ruled that certain mailed ballots that arrived after Election Day should still be counted — the state was struggling to process an unprecedented number of requests for such ballots, and many were not mailed until very close to that state’s April 2020 judicial election. In South Carolina, another judge temporarily blocked a state law requiring absentee voters to have another person sign their ballot as a witness. In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court ruled that many ballots received up to three days after the November election would be counted. Significantly, however, all three of these decisions received a chilly reception from a Republican Supreme Court. In the Wisconsin case, the Republican justices ordered the state to toss out ballots that were not postmarked by Election Day — even though many ballots had no postmark at all. In the South Carolina case, the Supreme Court reinstated the state law.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, meanwhile, wound up surviving contact with the US Supreme Court, but probably only due to an accident of timing. The case reached the Court during the interregnum between Democratic Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and Republican Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, and the eight remaining justices split 4-4 on whether to toss out the contested Pennsylvania ballots.  Ultimately, the Court dismissed the case as moot, in large part because Biden won the state by a large enough margin that it wouldn’t have mattered if these ballots were thrown in the trash. But the fact that Biden’s margin of victory was enough to overcome this lawsuit does not mean that the democratic process would have played out fairly if the election had been closer. Had Pennsylvania been close enough that the fate of these contested ballots would have decided it, the Republican justices could have easily made up a reason to hand the election to Trump — the Court’s right flank even had a legal argument ready to go, and the novelty of the legal issues presented by the pandemic would have left Biden without any clear precedent he could use to criticize such a ruling. In any event, few, if any, of the novel legal questions that arose out of the pandemic are still an issue in 2024. And even if Republicans do succeed in having many mailed ballots tossed out, they are unlikely to gain as much of an advantage from such a decision as they would have in 2020. One reason Republican lawyers targeted vote-by-mail rules in 2020 was that Democrats were far more likely to vote by mail than Republicans — an MIT report on the 2020 election found that “[s]ixty percent of Democrats, compared to 32 percent of Republicans, reported voting by mail.” So Trump’s lawyers knew they could potentially change the election result by maximizing the number of mailed ballots that got tossed out. This year, by contrast, early data suggests that Republicans are less reluctant to vote absentee than they were in 2020. And more Democrats in states that offer both in-person and mail-in voting are expected to vote in person because there’s no longer a pandemic forcing them to remain at home.  To be sure, Republicans apparently still believe they can gain an advantage by making it harder to vote by mail. Why would the GOP have asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to disqualify many voters who cast a mailed ballot in the Genser case, after all, unless Republicans believed that Democrats still have an edge among people who vote by mail? But this edge is likely to be smaller than it was in 2020. More broadly, beyond the insurrection-related issues that the Republican justices already resolved in Trump’s favor, Trump’s lawyers have yet to identify similarly novel legal questions that could give the courts sweeping authority to reshape how the 2024 election is conducted. That doesn’t mean that the courts will behave themselves, especially if the 2024 election is close, but it does give Trump’s legal team less material to work with than they had in 2020. Low-propensity voters increasingly favor Republicans For most of the 2000s, the battle lines in the voting rights wars were pretty clearly defined: Republicans tended to support legislation that made it marginally more difficult to vote, while Democrats fought in both court and in state and federal legislatures to make it easier to cast a ballot. As recently as 2021, for example, Georgia Republicans reacted to Biden’s 2020 victory in that state by tightening down the state’s voter ID law, limiting the use of drop boxes to collect ballots, banning volunteers from giving food and water to people waiting in line to vote, and paving the way for a MAGA takeover of the state’s board of elections. Democrats almost universally opposed this Georgia law. Similarly, on the US Supreme Court, Republican justices have consistently voted to uphold restrictive election laws and to dismantle laws like the federal Voting Rights Act, which are intended to hinder these kinds of restrictions.  For the moment, at least, neither party appears to be backing away from its historic position on voting rights. But it is less clear than it was, say, 15 years ago, that these kinds of restrictions benefit Republicans. It’s possible that, to the extent that they matter at all, some of these laws might give a slight boost to Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. One reason why it is now less clear that these sorts of laws harm Democrats is that we have more data than we did a dozen years ago. In the 2010s, for example, voting rights advocates and even many journalists and academics warned that strict voter ID laws (which require voters to show photo ID at the polls in order to vote) could significantly diminish Democratic turnout. Election forecaster Nate Silver, for example, predicted that a strict voter ID law in Pennsylvania “would reduce President Obama’s margin against Mitt Romney by a net of 1.2 percentage points” in the 2012 election. More recent studies, however, suggest that voter ID is a wash. A 2019 paper, for example, found that “the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.” Even if these laws do work as intended, it’s no longer clear that Republicans benefit from marginal restrictions on the franchise — whether that restriction is a voter ID law or something similar like limits on early voting or voting by mail.  Since Trump arrived on the scene, however, Democrats have made gains among high-propensity voting demographics such as highly educated voters and suburbanites. Trump, meanwhile, has made inroads with many of the same groups that were once believed to be discouraged from voting by laws like voter ID.  Republicans, in other words, now have less incentive to pass laws or push lawsuits that will make it harder to vote on the margins, and if they do use these tactics, they could come to regret it. At the very least, it is now far from clear that Republicans can skew elections by placing small but significant legal hurdles between voters and the polls. Congress fixed an incomprehensible election law Until recently, the process Congress used to count and certify the Electoral College’s votes for a new president was governed by the Electoral Count Act, an 1887 law signed by then-President Grover Cleveland. If you enjoy pain, you can read the full text of this law here. I can assure you that it is so labyrinthian it might have been drafted by a minotaur. After Trump’s failed insurrection in 2020, however, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers enacted a new law governing the vote-counting process, which reads more like a modern-day statute. That takes away Trump’s legal team’s ability to hunt for ambiguous passages in the old law and claim that they require Trump to be placed back in the White House. Admittedly, one of the most glaring problems with the old law is unlikely to be an issue in 2024. The old law stated that the vice president shall preside over the congressional session where electoral votes are counted but did not specify the vice president’s specific duties. In 2020, Trump and his lawyers tried to claim that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to effectively toss out many of Biden’s electoral votes and install Trump as the winner. The new law, by contrast, clarifies that the vice president’s duties are almost entirely “ministerial in nature.”  In any event, Kamala Harris is currently both the sitting vice president and the Democratic nominee for the presidency, so the likelihood that she would toss out some of her own electoral votes is vanishingly small. But the new law clarifies that a future vice president cannot use the counting process to change the result of an election. That clarification — and the others — should give Trump’s lawyers less to work with if they want to try to overthrow the result of the 2024 election.
vox.com
Four astronauts return to Earth after being delayed by Boeing’s capsule trouble and Hurricane Milton
Four astronauts returned to Earth on Friday after a nearly eight-month space station stay extended by Boeing’s capsule trouble and Hurricane Milton.
nypost.com
CNN's Jake Tapper admits his Democratic friends are 'terrified' Harris isn't 'closing the deal'
CNN anchor Jake Tapper spoke to Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore Thursday about Democrats worried about Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the election.
foxnews.com
Polls say voters back “mass deportation.” That’s misleading.
Republican National Convention attendees hold signs that read “Mass Deportation Now!” on the third day of the gathering in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 17, 2024. | Alex Wong / Getty Images This spring, an eye-opening poll from Axios suggested what once seemed unthinkable: Four in 10 Democrats were open to the idea of the US government deporting undocumented immigrants en masse. Though that share of support might seem high, other polls conducted since have found something similar, suggesting Americans at large are open to harsher, more Trumpian immigration policies. And yet, as attention-grabbing as some of the headlines on support for mass deportations have been (and as Donald Trump and his allies continue to talk about his plans for such), those polls may not accurately capture the mood of the American electorate. Support for a policy of mass deportation, while superficially high, rests on two related complications: substantial confusion among voters about what it might actually entail, as well as a generalized desire to do something — anything — on immigration, which polls frequently report to be among Americans’ top issues. That disconnect is because standalone polls and headlines do very little to capture the complexity of many Americans’ feelings about immigration, which often include simultaneous, and apparently contradictory, support for more immigrant-friendly policies alongside draconian ones. The real answer, more specific polling by firms like Pew Research Center suggests, lies somewhere in the middle: A good share of voters, it seems, are fine with increasing deportations. Some might even want the kind of operation Trump is floating. But many also want exceptions and protections for specific groups of immigrants who have been living in the US for a while, or have other ties to the country. Taking a deeper look at polling on immigration Back in August, the Pew Research Center dug into the question of mass deportations by asking registered voters their opinions on immigration levels, the value of immigrants, and what kind of exceptions they might endorse to allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the US. The results were messy, but showed two distinct things. First, support for “mass deportations of immigrants living in the country illegally” received majority support: 56 percent of registered voters “strongly or somewhat” favored such a proposal. That majority of voters included, unsurprisingly, 88 percent of Trump voters; it also included about 3 in 10 supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris. The August findings align with Pew’s earlier research, conducted in January 2024, which found a majority of Americans think “increasing deportations” of people who are living in the US illegally would improve the US immigration system and reduce southern border crossings. Republican respondents in that survey were essentially uniform in supporting such a policy; Democrats were divided, with similar shares (about 30 percent) saying deportations would make things better or worse. At the same time, both of Pew’s surveys found Americans were also supportive of more friendly policies for undocumented immigrants, like a pathway to citizenship. The August report notes that about 6 in 10 registered voters say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to “stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met.” And a similar share, 58 percent, favored “allowing undocumented immigrants to legally work and stay in the country if they are married to a US citizen.” Sahana Mukherjee, one of the Pew Research Center analysts behind the August deep-dive on “mass deportations,” told me that as many as 40 percent of registered voters who support mass deportations also support a policy that would allow undocumented spouses of US citizens to remain in the country.  That share varies based on which candidate these voters support: About a third of Trump supporters who back mass deportations support such a plan, while about 60 percent of Harris supporters who back mass deportations do. But this group of voters with overlapping priorities suggests that when taking the temperature of the public, being open to mass deportations isn’t the same as supporting a specific policy. Support changes when you get into the details of who could be affected. Similarly, Mukherjee said, about 40 percent of registered voters who support mass deportations — one-third of the Trump supporters who do so, and two-thirds among the same pool of Harris supporters — also endorse the idea of undocumented immigrants being allowed to remain in the US “if certain conditions are met.” Other high-quality polls second these nuanced, seemingly contradictory feelings: A September Ipsos poll found 54 percent of American adults supported a mass deportation plan, while, at the same time, 68 percent would also support a “pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the US as children.” Similar dynamics hold true among Hispanic and Latino respondents, with a twist: While about 4 in 10 Latinos in the two most recent high-quality polls of these voters backed some kind of deportation program, a much higher share also supported some kind of pathway to citizenship.  A New York Times-Siena poll of Hispanics from October, for example, found 67 percent of Hispanics backed a pathway to citizenship for “all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States” while 45 percent supported deporting immigrants living illegally in the US. A poll from NBC/Telemundo in September showed similar levels of support for deportations, while 87 percent of Hispanics backed a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought as children to the US, and 91 percent supported that pathway for undocumented spouses. Making sense of these policy nuances So why do voters hold seemingly conflicting views on immigration? Pro-immigrant advocates argue that there isn’t a contradiction here — those competing numbers instead represent people who don’t understand exactly what “mass deportation” means or what a deportation program would look like in practice.  Americans might not understand that deportations of all undocumented immigrants would include deportations of DACA recipients and longtime neighbors or friends who have been living normally and are bedrocks of local communities, advocates and researchers say — rather than only recent arrivals, or those few migrants who commit violent crimes yet get outsize media and political attention, who they may view differently. Mukherjee said there’s also a degree of nuance that issue and horserace polls might not be picking up, since they aren’t necessarily equipped to ask in-depth questions. “We asked about one requirement specifically in the survey, which is looking at if you’re married to a US citizen, but it remains to be seen whether there are other requirements that people are also thinking about,” Mukherjee said. “What we hear about in everyday discourse, in the media, is if you have a child who is US born, or if you yourself came as a child. We didn’t get into this in the survey, but it’s possible these are some of the requirements people were thinking about, and perhaps that could be influencing that share of people who support both.” At the same time, when it comes to complex policy options, and especially to immigration policy, Americans can be idiosyncratic in their opinions. Surveys that don’t specify what “mass deportation” means may also be tracking inflated support for the kind of hardline stance the Trump/Vance campaign is offering, Steven Kull, the director of the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, told me. “Questions that are just like, ‘do you favor or oppose mass deportation’ I think are very limited in their value, because you don’t know what it means,” Kull said. “All people know is ‘deport a large number of people.’ And 1,000 people is a lot of people. Ten thousand is a lot of people. It’s not clear that it’s 11 million — that the policy is to deport 11 million — and that it would entail a massive operation, and all that has to be clear to really understand what public opinion is on the issue.” Kull’s team instead has run surveys of national samples and groups of swing-state voters that provide additional information and arguments in favor and against either mass deportations or pathways to citizenship. The result, again, is complex, but support for mass deportations falls when presented against the option for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants provided they meet specific requirements. “There is some appeal to the idea [of mass deportation] — let’s be clear about that. But it’s not that people have it all crystallized in their mind,” Kull said. How is this playing out on the campaign trail? Immigration reform advocates and some Democratic strategists are doing their best to highlight that nuance when advising Democrats on how to respond to Trump’s escalating rhetoric around immigration and immigrants. They urge Democrats to be clear about just who would get caught up in a broad mass deportation scheme — and to contrast that with a more “balanced” Democratic approach to immigration and the border. In a private memo prepared for national Democratic campaigns looking to address Trump’s mass deportation position and shared with Vox, strategists argue that this polling picture presents Democrats with a narrow path to repudiate the Trump approach while acknowledging the real concerns some voters have with recent waves on migration in the Biden years. “We have more than enough reason to believe that voters, when asked their opinion on deportations, take it to mean the deportation of people who have recently crossed the border, as well as known criminal elements,” the strategists advise. They highlight Trump running mate JD Vance’s October debate statement explaining this deportation scheme (emphasis original to the memo): “So we’ve got 20, 25 million illegal aliens who are here in the country. What do we do with them? I think the first thing that we do is we start with the criminal migrants. About a million of those people have committed some form of crime in addition to crossing the border illegally. I think you start with deportations on those folks.” “The Vance position as stated here is likely popular,” the strategists explain. “That is why Harris and Democrats cannot allow him to frame his position in that way, especially when we know their actual plans call for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants (including spouses and Dreamers).” Complex feelings on immigration and potential deportation programs offer Democrats an opportunity to stake out more moderate ground when discussing immigration policy — and to prevent immigration opponents from defining the terms of the debate over policy. They’re also an important reminder that it can be perilous to trust top-line numbers and polling results without digging into the details, or presenting voters with more options to begin with. Recent polls all show a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, yes, but they also show that there is room for pro-immigrant candidates to shape the national debate and make a vocal case for Americans and immigrants.
vox.com